Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The New Metro Minority

The New Metro Minority

Ratings: (0)|Views: 15 |Likes:
Published by teembill

More info:

Published by: teembill on Sep 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/01/2011

pdf

text

original

 
BROOKINGS
 
August 2011
   S   T   A   T   E   O   F   M   E   T   R   O   P   O   L   I   T   A   N    A   M   E   R   I   C   A   |
   R   A   C   E    &    E   T   H   N   I   C   I   T   Y
The New Metro Minority Map:
 
Regional Shifts in Hispanics, Asians,and Blacks from Census 2010
“The 2010 censusreveals a broad sweepof racial and ethnicchange that has madeits greatest imprinton the nation’s largestmetropolitan areas.”


1
 
FINDINGS
An analysis of 1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial census data for the 100 largest U.S.metropolitan areas indicates that:
 
Non-whites and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of population growth in largemetro areas from 2000 to 2010.
Forty-two of the 100 largest metro areas lost whitepopulation, and 22 now have “majority minority” populations. Smaller metro areas andareas outside of metropolitan regions, by contrast, remain overwhelmingly white.
 
Nearly half of Hispanics live in just 10 large metro areas, but those metro areasaccounted for only 36 percent of Hispanic growth over the past decade.
Meanwhile,29 of the 100 largest metro areas more than doubled their Hispanic populations; in two-thirds of these, Mexican Americans contributed most to Hispanic growth.
 
Asians are even more concentrated than Hispanics, with one-third living in just threemetro areas: Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco.
While Chinese Americansremain the largest origin group among Asians, Asian Indians are dispersing more rapidlyand accounted for more growth than other Asian groups in 63 of the 100 largest metroareas.
 
Three-quarters of black population gains from 2000 to 2010 occurred in the South.
Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston led all metropolitan areas in black population gains at thesame time that black population dropped in metropolitan New York, Chicago, and Detroitfor the
rst time.
Average neighborhood segregation levels held steady for Hispanics and Asians butdeclined for blacks from 2000 to 2010.
Older and northern metropolitan areas continue toregister the highest segregation levels for minority groups. Despite recent declines, blacksremain more residentially segregated than either Hispanics or Asians.This report shows how the rapid growth of Hispanic and Asian origin groups and new internalshifts of African Americans are transforming the racial and ethnic demographic pro
les ofAmerica’s largest metropolitan areas ahead of other parts of the country.
William H. Frey
 
BROOKINGS
 
August 2011
2
   S   T   A   T   E   O   F   M   E   T   R   O   P   O   L   I   T   A   N    A   M   E   R   I   C   A   |
   R   A   C   E    &    E   T   H   N   I   C   I   T   Y
INTRODUCTION
The 2010 census shows strikingly that the
rst decade of the 21
st
century was pivotal for racial and ethnicchange in the United States, indicating a clear break from the past.
1
The aging white population grewby only 1.2 percent over the 10-year period, giving way to the younger “new minority” growth engines,fueled by both recent immigration and natural increase. The two largest of these new minorities, Hispanicsand Asians, each grew about 43 percent—together accounting for more than 60 percent of the nation’spopulation growth over the last decade. Blacks, growing at 12 percent, contributed far less, making the oldimage of a largely white-black U.S. population more than obsolete.Yet this new sweep of diversity is not affecting all parts of the country evenly—a fact that has created wedgeissues across many segments of society. An earlier State of Metropolitan America report showed thatracial and ethnic shifts are much more prevalent among youth than among older age groups, leading tothe potential emergence of cultural generation gaps.
2
This report takes a spatial perspective to illuminatehow the largest new minorities—Hispanics and Asians—though relatively concentrated in a few largemetropolitan areas, are gradually spreading out to new destinations.Understanding this contemporary diaspora requires a more detailed focus on the origin and nationality ofthe new minorities. Many observers con
ate Hispanic growth patterns with Mexican Americans, the largestsingle group of Hispanics as de
ned by the census. This report examines the degree to which the latter arepropelling overall dispersal and where these patterns lie. Compared with Hispanics, Asian Americans areless dominated by a single ethnic group and have been altered more substantially by recent immigrantsfrom several origins. The composition of the Asian populations, and the speci
c origin groups driving itsdispersion during a decade when this population grew most rapidly, is explored in this report.Despite the large contributions of Hispanics and Asians to recent growth, blacks still remain the dominantminority in many metropolitan areas. The black population is particularly noteworthy this past decade for itsshifts across metro areas within the United States, and for its accelerating return to the South.Following a discussion of methods and data, the
ndings detail how sharply these new minority growthpatterns alter the demographic pro
les of large metropolitan areas and reduce the white populationpresence in many of them. This is followed by an examination of neighborhood residential segregation ofHispanics, Asians and blacks in large metropolitan areas. The report concludes with a brief discussion ofwhat these large metropolitan area racial and ethnic changes imply for the new social and economic realitiesfacing these areas, and other parts of the country.
METHODOLOGY
Data sources 
Data for this study draw from U.S. decennial censuses of 1990, 2000, and 2010.
3
 
Racial and ethnic classi 
fi 
cations 
The decennial census asks two separate questions on race and ethnicity.
4
The
rst asks the respondentwhether he/she is of Hispanic or Latino origin. Hispanics can identify several subgroups. This reportexamines in detail the largest numeric Hispanic subgroups: Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans. Peoplewho identify as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.The second question asks the respondent to identify his/her race; options on the 2010 decennial forminclude (among others) white, black/African American, Asian (with several sub-groups), American Indians,some other race, and one or more races. Following convention in earlier reports, this report focuses onnon-Hispanic members of each race group, speci
cally non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Asians. SectionC and Appendix C are exceptions, focusing on all Asians (both Hispanic and non-Hispanic) as well as thelargest numeric Asian subgroups--Asian Indians and Chinese. Throughout, the report uses the term “newminorities” to refer to groups other than non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks.
 
BROOKINGS
 
August 2011
3
   S   T   A   T   E   O   F   M   E   T   R   O   P   O   L   I   T   A   N    A   M   E   R   I   C   A   |
   R   A   C   E    &    E   T   H   N   I   C   I   T   Y
Geography 
The geographic units employed for most of this analysis are the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas asde
ned by the U.S. Of
ce of Management and Budget in December 2010. Segregation indices (see below)use census tracts to represent neighborhoods. Census tracts are small subdivisions of counties with anaverage of about 4,000 inhabitants.
Segregation 
The measure of neighborhood racial/ethnic segregation used in this report, termed the “segregation index”(in Figure 4, Table 4, and Appendix E), is the index of dissimilarity. The dissimilarity index measures thedifference in the location of two groups (e.g., blacks and whites) across neighborhoods within a metropolitanarea. Values range from 0 to 100 where 0 represents complete integration and 100 represents completesegregation. The value can be interpreted as the percentage of one group that would have to changeneighborhoods to be residentially distributed exactly the same as the other group. Segregation index levelsof at least 60 are considered high and those of at least 70 or are considered extreme.
5
Segregation levels fora minority group are not affected by its relative size in a metropolitan area, but only by its similar or dissimilarresidential distribution in relation to whites. Average segregation levels for minority groups reported herere
ect the average of segregation levels in each of the 100 largest metropolitan areas.
FINDINGS
A. Non-whites and Hispanics accounted for 98 percent of population growth in large metro areasfrom 2000 to 2010.
Large metropolitan areas have traditionally been the nexus of minority settlement in the United States,starting with immigrant waves in the early 20th century, and continuing through mid-century with AfricanAmerican movement to northern cities. Not surprisingly, new minorities with substantial immigrant roots areconcentrating in large metropolitan areas at higher rates than the general population.Shifts in the composition of the nation’s 100 largest metro areas make this plain (Figure 1a). Between 1990and 2010, the combined white share of population in these metro areas decreased from 71 percent to 57percent. Over the same period, Hispanics grew from 11 percent to 20 percent of population across thesemetro areas. Meanwhile, the white share of population in smaller metro areas and outside of metro territorydeclined, but remains much higher, at 73 percent and 80 percent, respectively.Population growth trends over the past decade accentuated these racial and ethnic differences betweenlarge metro areas and other parts of the nation (Figure 1b). Gains among Hispanics, Asians, and blackswere much greater in large metro areas. By contrast, gains for whites were greatest in smaller metro areas.The white population grew about the same outside of metro areas as in large metro areas.By 2010, minorities (non-whites and Hispanics) comprised more than half the population in 22 of the 100largest metro areas, up from 14 areas in 2000 and just
ve in 1990. Among the newcomers to this categoryare metropolitan New York, Washington D.C., San Diego, Las Vegas, and Memphis (Map 1). Overall, mostof these “majority minority” metro areas are located in California and Texas, where Hispanics dominate theminority population. The more recent spread to other parts of the South and the Eastern seaboard could“tip” Atlanta and Orlando, as well as Dallas, to metropolitan majority-minority populations before the nextcensus. Metropolitan Chicago, at 55 percent white in 2010, could very well experience a similar result.The role of minorities in driving population growth and de
ning metropolitan character goes beyond these“majority minority” metro areas. Each of the 100 large metro areas showed declines in its white populationshare from 2000 to 2010. In 65 metro areas, the decline was at least 5 percentage points, led by Las Vegaswith a 12 percentage-point decline (from 60 percent in 2000 to 48 percent in 2010). Metropolitan areas onthe periphery of greater New York, including Allentown, PA (from 87 percent to 79 percent) and New Haven,CT (from 75 percent to 68 percent) showed signi
cant shifts during the decade as well (see Appendix A).Many metropolitan areas showed not only declines in the white share of population, but also absolutedeclines in white population. White populations shrank from 2000 to 2010 in fully 42 of the 100 largestmetro areas. Patterns of white population increase and decline do not exactly parallel overall populationtrends (Map 2). Some of the largest white decliners, such as New York and Los Angeles, are experiencing

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->